Search

News spread like wildfire. By now, we all know, the Oklahoma Supreme Court lifted the stay in the case of Brown V. DeLapp (although many of you may know it better as Adoptive Couple V. Baby Girl). On Monday, the OKSC lifted their stay at approximately 2:30 pm. By 7:30, Veronica was gone. Officials went to the Jack Brown house at the Cherokee Nation complex and removed her. She was escorted away by Ms. Nimmo, attorney for the Cherokee Nation, who with heavy heart had to deliver Veronica to the adoptive couple waiting at tribal headquarters. As she was taken away from her family, her cry rang out….. “No, I don’t want to go! I don’t want to go! I don’t want to go!” It fell on deaf ears. There was nothing that could be done.

In physically coming to Oklahoma, the Capobiancos forced the spotlight on this child. They got preferential treatment in that, because of the media storm they’d created, their coming to the state caused this case to be given priority with the attention of the Governors of both states. Media outlets were literally drooling over the chance to report every detail. Often cases of this nature die a slow death in our court systems. They lie there for months and sometimes years between hearings while a child hangs in the balance despite urgent concerns regarding their welfare. Each side is given the opportunity during the down time to mount a defense. Mr. Brown nor Veronica was given this chance. This couple cared only for claiming their prize and quickly. With each hearing came a flood of photos, speculation and the constant reminder from Mrs. Capobianco that precious time and money were being lost and ‘could we hurry this up please.’ No other case of this nature has been given this type of preferential treatment with the adoptive couple being catered to and given hearings and appearances almost daily.

They don’t tell you the Capobiancos had no incentive to mediate. The judge’s statement read that both parties negotiated in good faith. They don’t tell you the details of those negotiations though. They don’t say that while the couple publicly stated they want everyone to play a part in Veronica’s life, privately they reneged on offers and offered little to nothing. They don’t say that to have the father in Veronica’s life is their constant reminder that this child isn’t totally theirs. They don’t say their actions have spoken volumes and they sought to sever any and all ties between her and her father.

We didn’t realize Mr. Brown had no chance. We didn’t realize the media was so skewed. With CNN on their side (Adoptive Couple’s forces having befriended many at the network) and leading their charge, many in the country were spoon fed details that were outright deceptive. With pressure from both Governor’s and threats of jail time, it seems that the couple were willing to stop at nothing short of destroying Mr. Brown’s life. Not happy with simply taking his child, they now sue for attorney’s fees and fines. And while initiated by the courts on their behalf supposedly, Adoptive Couple has yet to speak out and ask that the war be ended, charges be dropped or that their supporters stop harassing the Browns.

The public was led to believe despite all facts that Veronica would somehow remember this couple. We were shown pictures of a happy, smiling Veronica and told she DID remember them. What we weren’t told was that these pictures were taken after weeks of visitation involving many gifts given and that the child, while not remembering them, had gotten to know them. We weren’t told these visits were within the setting of a familiar play space to Veronica and that she viewed these visits as simply play dates knowing she went home to mommy and daddy in the end. We also weren’t told what Veronica’s reaction was to them once she had time to go home each night and process the whole situation in her own mind, what she may have told friends or teachers about them, or what she felt about them in general. Getting to know and remembering are two far different things. While no one doubts the Capobiancos will care for Veronica, their need to paint their relationship with her as natural and somehow destined by twisting the facts is questionable.

But the sad reality is that Veronica is gone and the damage will forever be irreparable. You see, at birth to two, a child is developing but their long term memory isn’t yet there. They are more concerned with their needs being met and react primarily to discomfort. At the age Veronica lived with her father, by four, her memory develops. She grew to know Mr. Brown as her natural born father and his wife as her mother. Her world expanded to relationships and she began to take in her surroundings. To her, real or imagined, these two are her psychological parents. She will always remember them now that she’s had time to bond with them. She will always know them as her ‘real’ mom and dad. Anyone else is merely a substitution with her hopes continuing the rest of her life to find answers as to where they went and what happened to them. No answer provided by anyone else will suffice. She will need to seek her own answers to be sure of their truth.

And it’s that desperate need to paint this bond as something shared between both them and the child as something natural and destined that concerns many. Veronica didn’t share this bond. This bond was entirely one sided. It was born from the Capobiancos desire for children, a desire so strong they fooled their own minds into imagining if only they could obtain her, the bond and feelings would surely be reciprocated. And if not immediately reciprocated then they could be nurtured over time using Melanie’s knowledge of psychology , manipulating in order to create a bond.

Having feelings of maternal urgency or an urge to mother is far different than maternal instinct. Maternal instinct is a need to protect. Maternal urgency is the desperate feeling one’s biological clock is ticking. The desire here to be a parent so overwhelmed rational thought. Because if Melanie had maternal instinct, that instinct would have said Veronica was with a loving and fit bio father who wanted her. It would have told them they would damage her if they tampered with it. It would have driven them to protect her even at the cost of their loss. Who did what when, claims of abandonment, who had her first, none of that will ever matter later. Her age or how many years she spent with either won’t matter. She could have been 6 or 10 or even 13 when they took her. It doesn’t matter if she spent two years or one summer with her father. But she now knows another set of parents exist, a biological parent is out there waiting for her. You cannot put the genie back in the bottle. What will matter is she got to know them at an age that she will remember them and that they were taken from her for reasons short of severe. There was no abuse. There was no neglect. And anything short of that will never be justifiable in her mind as she grows.

We know Matt and Melanie will care for her. We know they’ll provide her with all they can in life. She’ll have the best. We know they love her. But while that’s wonderful and kind, she will be an empty shell. She will wait for her day. She will have nagging questions. And even if she is led to believe her father was a axe murderer, she will have a pride in being his daughter throughout it all. She will wait for the day when she can reconnect to him. To slander his name will fuel her determination. To make no mention of him at all will peak her curiosity. It’s one game that no one can win because despite what you say, she will have her own feelings on the issue. You see, Veronica IS Dusten Brown. She is the living, breathing extension of her father. And by trying to sever that bond, they’ve only made it stronger and more urgent. They will make her more determined. They will forever have to buy her love while all the while she quietly waits until the day she can get her answers and find her roots. She won’t outwardly say that. She’ll harbor that within herself for fear of hurting their feelings or making them feel she is ungrateful for her beautiful life but those feelings will quietly be there. Until one day, one day she will Google her name. Or she’ll wonder what happened to those other parents she remembers. Her mind will lead her home.

Despite it all, she will remember she is Veronica Brown from ‘Nowater, Okahoma’.

And because there is no word for goodbye in the Cherokee language, the Cherokee Nation, family and supporters all say dodadagohv’I – we will see each other again. Veronica will look to that road one day. One day she will hear the beat of the drum. One day she will come home and her parents will see her again.

We wish you Godspeed Little Star. You get big and strong and we will wait for as long as it takes. All roads lead to home.

Single mothers get recognition. We raise them in praise every Mother’s day. Single Ladies get a song. What exactly do ‘thwarted fathers’ get? Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Well unless you consider the scripted ridicule. And then they get ‘deadbeat’, ‘loser’, ‘serial impregnator’, ‘sperm donor’, etc…

According to the Meriam Webster dictionary, to thwart is to:

run counter to so as to effectively oppose or baffle : contravene

oppose successfully : defeat the hopes or aspirations of

pass through or across

You see, the gist of what you are about to see is that according to Judge Malphrus of South Carolina in her ruling of Sept. 2011, Dusten Brown was a THWARTED FATHER. That means he was effectively opposed, that adoptive couple effectively violated his rights. It means they defeated his hopes and aspirations of being a father. They passed right over him, ignoring his rights and stealing his child with trickery of the law much like some fairy, adopto-land magicians.

I realize many have been told for a long time that Mr. Brown abandoned his child and is a horrible person but that simply was not the truth. It makes the entire tragedy that has become Baby Girl’s life much more palatable if we believe this couple were SAVING her. After all, they even named their cause SAVE Veronica Rose. They are saving her right?

But a deeper read and some thought lets you get a glimpse of adopto-world tactics, into what happens when an adoptive couple is so desperate to adopt that they are willing to ‘thwart’ the father to do so.

They find birth mothers in unfortunate situations. They offer inducements. They get her support and permission. She often has an axe to grind with the birth father. Adoptive couples and attorneys are often very eager to help birth mothers solve this little issue. They often forgo some part of the paperwork. They cut the father out of the picture. The list goes on.

But here we see, Mr. Brown still won his case on more issues than simply ICWA. They found his rights were intact and had to be terminated first. They found terminating them was NOT in Baby Girl’s best interest. They would not terminate them. They found birth mother lied. They found adoptive couple to be untruthful when seeking to terminate his rights based solely on lack of support for six consecutive months. They found Adoptive Couple was trying to use a loophole to get around him. They found he tried to be there but wasn’t allowed to be. They found adoptive couple to be impeding contact between Mr. Brown and his daughter.

But somehow, on appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, the only issue before them was ICWA and whether that applied. And in another unfortunate leap, South Carolina (on remand) seemed all too eager to forgo Baby Girl’s right to a best interest hearing and various other procedural safeguards and simply hand the prize over to the highest bidders, the Capobiancos. They were able to ignore every other legal ground on which Mr. Brown won his case. They simply said ICWA did not apply so therefore, regardless of his rights and any other legalities, these people, as well-to-do South Carolina consitituents should have his child simply because as Mrs. Capobianco stated, they wanted her more.

How did we get from there to here? How can our justice system allow this to happen to a legal birth parent in this country? What if this were your father? Your son? Your child? How do we fail a child like this? I’m hoping it’s a question we all will be asking ourselves. I hope it’s something that doesn’t allow one to sleep at night. I hope it’s something that outrages others as much as it’s outraged me. I hope it’s something that compels one to scream and yell and write letters and tell the world this just isn’t even humane!

Often, if we compare statements one has made at different times, we are able to detect slight differences. We can see how one’s story changes. We’d like to bring you for comparison, Birth Mother, Christy Maldonado’s affidavit from the Oklahoma court case in Adoptive Couple vs. Baby Girl.

At this point, after being served and finding out he had a child, Mr. Brown moved to obtain custody in the Oklahoma courts. Here you see Birth Mother’s statement at that time.

♦

♦

First we see from the case title “Dusten Dale Brown vs. Christinna Maldonado, Matthew and Melanie, last name unknown and Does 1-25” that Father’s testimony stating he was unaware of Baby Girl’s whereabouts and didn’t know who had her was in fact plausible. At this point, he and his attorney are unaware of the Adoptive Couple’s names other than that they are known as Matthew and Melanie. His statements in later proceedings are consistent with initial filings and the story has been consistent throughout.

From these pages we see statement #4 conflicts with all other testimony from Birth Mother stating she had no contact with Mr. Brown during the later stages of her pregnancy. This affidavit is from an earlier time in this case. We are then led to ask ‘Well, which is the truth?’ Was she in contact with him as she states here or wasn’t she? We must wonder, was Miss Maldonado honest here but later coached as to what her statement should be in order to be more in line with Adoptive Couple’s assertions?

In statement #5, she states Mr. Brown did wish to sign away his rights. But again, we see from Mr. Brown’s testimony, he used the terms ‘sign away my rights’ and ‘give custody to Miss Maldonado’ interchangeably. Could this be a rather technical sort of play on words? Could he have expressed his wish to ‘sign his rights away’ to her instead and was that left out?

Statement #6 tells us Mr. Brown did nothing to establish his rights to paternity. We must take issue on this one, not in defense of Mr. Brown but in defense of all who are not aware of their rights. In many unethical adoptions, the fact that the biological father is unaware of his rights is often the very thing adoption agencies hope and pray for. The often seek out spiteful, uneducated or unstable mothers hoping the fathers have no clue. They often reassure these vulnerable women that father will never find out or they coach them on how to make sure father never finds out. Simple internet searches of adoption agencies will show in their Q&A, they often address this issue (sometimes vaguely or sometimes via a ‘chat with a counselor’ option so as not to state it publicly on their page). But rest assured, should you want to get around the pesky issue of father’s rights, there is an agency out there willing to help. (Read More)

Many father’s also have no idea that a putative father registry exists in their state. They have never even heard of the term. With some state laws saying a prospective father must register with his state’s putative father registry before birth or within so many days of the birth, it’s often a way to subvert father’s rights rather than assure they are firmly in place. And in some cases, despite having registered, the father’s rights are still ignored.

We know that the adoptive couple filed their adoption petition on Sept. 18th, 2009. However, from statement # 8, we see that South Carolina did not approve of Baby Girl’s placement in the state until Sept. 21st, 2009. We also know that Adoptive Couple didn’t take Baby Girl to South Carolina until approximately 7 or 8 days after birth (Sept. 22-23) from Adoptive Mother’s testimony. On the issue, South Carolina adoption law specifically states that the child must be present in the state at the time a petition is filed. The child need not have been born there but must be present there at the time. Baby Girl was not present in South Carolina at the time they filed the petition for adoption.

♦

SECTION 63-9-50. Children who may be adopted.

Any child present within this State at the time the petition for adoption is filed, irrespective of place of birth or place of residence, may be adopted.

♦

We further see from Birth Mother’s testimony, ICPC procedure was not adhered to in that the ICPC agency was not told of Baby Girl’s Native American heritage. We see that birth mother states that although she knew father’s name and birth date were wrong, she did little to provide the correct information. And had that been done, then not only would Father have been notified but his tribe would also have been given the chance to intervene. Baby Girl not present in South Carolina when the petition for adoption was filed, and when she did arrive there it was by rather suspicious means.

And in #9, she uses THE most used reason in all contested adoptions… ‘but we’ve had the baby for so long, we’ve bonded and shouldn’t have to give baby back’ theory. This is almost always used in every single contested and unethical adoption in history. By holding on to baby long enough, an adoptive couple often asserts that now, after bonding has occurred, removing baby from their care would be detrimental. Of note though, in this case, Adoptive Couple used this theory initially but since Baby Girl has been with Father now for the past two years of her life, they now assert the opposite in stating a move now, although damaging, should still occur regardless and Baby Girl’s best interests should NOT be considered. They’ve also made attempts to block the appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem in Oklahoma.

It almost sounds as if this entire thing was drafted by Attorney Paul Swain, who we know was involved not only in this case but in the Baby Desirai case as well. Mr. Swain makes sure to let the prospective birth mother know, not only can he deal with that pesky birth father issue, but even if you are a young, pregnant mother, he can deal with that too. As we understand, as was allegedly done in the Desirai case, Mr. Swain can also deal with guardianship, taking custody of the baby himself in order to more expediently place baby.

Well as promised, this is the information many have requested. However, we have to warn you for the most part, it is rather dull stuff as most court records are.

And we’d like to point out the issues here for the reader to verify because she seems much more gifted in her skill with words so some of you may not pick up on conflicts as easily as they were seen in other testimony. Please keep in mind the dates. Testimony varies regarding the dates Mrs. Capobianco claims to have know Baby Girl was an Indian Child. They fluctuate from pre-birth, January, April, July with the pos-post report, etc.

(We normally just don’t include the direct. As a general rule, it just seems rehearsed and is often boring. The legal mud doesn’t begin to get slung in any proceeding until the cross as a rule. The first direct just seems to lay the ground work and is one’s own attorney asking simply what they want you to know of their client. However, we can include any direct upon request.)

Miss Maldonado reported to adoptive couple that birth father was aware of the the pregnancy but was NOT aware of her adoption plans. pg. 180

Miss Maldonado did not specifically tell Mr. Brown she was going to place the child for adoption and told Melanie she had told Mr. Brown that she didn’t know what she was going to do. pg. 208

Melanie did not attempt to contact birth father ever and never spoke with him. pg. 199, 207

All that she knew about Dusten Brown, she’d gotten from Miss Maldonado. pg. 207

She admits Mr. Brown and his family would have had no way to contact her. pg. 207

Melanie admits Mr. Brown has bought presents for Baby Girl but that they denied them through their attorney. pg. 208

Melanie admits they did not allow Mr. Brown and his family to see the child. pg. 208

**On a side note, IF one were to also be under psychiatric care and currently on medication, we wouldn’t not be allowed to tell you that because that would be a privacy issue under the HIPAA act. We wouldn’t even be able to say we confirmed it. So we’ll just not say anything on the topic.

We’d imagine the most annoying thing to a dog would be a flea on its ass in that one spot… well, we’re off topic already. Geez. Anyway, so the reason we find ourselves posting is because someone just got themselves in a fit and decided to try to beat us to the punch. You see, we had this schedule all planned. We would post every few days and give you a little more with each post. And we even had a bet here among authors of this blog. We wondered how long it would take for the other side to do exactly what they did last night. Last night, someone from the Capobianco camp released what looks to be the cross-examination of Dusten Brown from the 2011 South Carolina family court hearing. However, you see, in true Capobianco camp fashion, they only released for you the most damning 15 pages, out of context, of what is really more than 60 pages of testimony from Mr. Brown. They hoped the reader would be so stupid as to just eat that little slice of garbage right up and run as fast as they could to hit the ‘LIKE’ button on their page on Facebook and jump right on into the cesspool of Dusten bashing. Rather foolish given there are other forums out there eager to call their bluff wouldn’t you say?

We committed when we began publishing to bring you whatever was relevant in this matter no matter how damning. We decided early on we would publish it all no matter how damning. With the testimony being roughly 700 pages chock full of experts and court procedure, we committed to bringing you the important points albeit a bit more condensed. We figured our readers wouldn’t necessarily want to weed through all that, bored to tears by tedious stuff so we’d cut it down and bring you the stuff that mattered most. We also decided to only redact information if it were about other persons not party to litigation.

We were honestly even hoping to move on to ‘Drunk Driving’ week but, well, fleas are impatient little buggers.

So as usual, let us point out a few things before you read….

According to court records, at this point in time, Dusten’s salary is roughly $20k annually. In the last year, he’s paid more than $20k in attorney’s fees. He’s caught up on some of his child support. He’s purchased new furniture for Baby Girl’s room along with clothes and toys. He’s paid for attorneys in the Oklahoma case prior to this case. Now he’s probably had the help of family because his does seem to be a close-knit family but regardless, by our count, in one year he’s probably had to pay far more than his annual salary thereby proving his certain commitment to Baby Girl.

You can see, as was the case with Mrs. Brown, that Dusten Brown may not have legal knowledge with respect to terminology and the terms ‘custody’ and ‘rights’. He uses the terms interchangeably. However, he does seem honest to a fault. He uses the terms ‘sign my rights’ which would lead one to believe he intended to sign away his parental rights to this child but we ask that you look at intent. He does explain in several sections that to him that meant signing custody over to Ms. Maldonado and even notes he hopes that will appease her and they will reunite and marry. As we’ve also seen in Mrs. Brown’s testimony posted earlier, Dusten Brown hopes even at this late date, albeit probably naively, that he can still somehow get back together with Ms. Maldonado even as this trial is taking place.

Brown did in fact offer support in the pregnancy which was rebuffed by birth mother. Birth mother created an artificial abandonment scenario by refusing any support or contact from Mr. Brown.

Brown did make inquiries as to the health and welfare of both Ms. Maldonado and Baby Girl but was again rebuffed. He even went so far as to have friends inquire for him. His mother, Mrs. Brown admits in her testimony she too attempted contact. At that point, Dusten Brown’s only options would have been to force his presence upon Ms. Maldonado. We can only guess had he done that, we’d be witnessing a much different scenario now as Mr. Brown would be facing any number of harassment and stalking charges.

Brown made many inquiries of his commanding officers seeking advice including on Baby Girl’s dependency eligibility early on. There is no requirement of pre-birth child support so he couldn’t have paid that at that point. As for any support paid to the Capobiancos for Baby Girl, that is best explained this way…. In adoptions of this nature, an adoptive couple would normally be advised not to accept any support from a biological parent as it may give the impression the parent is paying support for what is their child. Legally they do not want this child seen as someone else’s but as available for adoption with no support. Adoptive couples would not want to give the impression they are acknowledging by accepting money that this is another person’s child. They would be advised to not accept any funds. And Mr. Brown, as you see he mentions here, has sent funds to the Capobiancos for support. He mentions a ‘trust fund’. However, what he incorrectly understood that to be and what it is are two different matters. What this really refers to is that the Capobiancos attorneys most likely put all funds into a trust account to be set aside and held pending the outcome of this trial so they wouldn’t be seen as accepting child support.

And lastly, as we speculated in earlier posts and as evidenced by other court documents, Mr. Brown’s only reasoning for not bringing up his Native heritage sooner was that he was rushed to file in this matter before deployment. The opposition would like to think that because he doesn’t wear a sign and carry a tomahawk, that his Indian heritage is not important to him. We challenge you to show us any German who wears the same sign, who would carry a beer stein everywhere. Or an Irishman who carries the same sign who speaks as if he just jumped out of the Lucky Charms box. Because while our example are stereotypical and rude, this is exactly the logic they use. They assume that because Mr. Brown doesn’t fit their stereotype, he is not Indian enough for them. Many Indians will tell you and it’s been mentioned ad nauseam that the transfer of culture from one generation to another occurs in the stories told and the foods eaten and the small, day-to-day exchanges unconsciously that matter. One would not announce to their children while in full Native regalia “CHILDREN, COME, GATHER. I INTEND TO TEACH YOU YOUR CULTURE TODAY FROM 4-6 PM WHILE WE TAKE PICTURES TO DOCUMENT THIS OCCASION.”

Note: The only testimony with respect to Mr. Brown not included here is by Mr. Lowndes (attorney for the Guardian Ad Litem) and the reason for this was simply brevity and because it was repetitive of the cross by Mr. Godwin.

Side Note: The blog putting this out uses the Tsalagi or Cherokee word “GIGESDI” meaning purple. We commend them for coming out of their hole to learn a new word in Baby Girl’s native language. However, simply learning a new word does not mean they have any concern for Baby Girl’s heritage.

As promised, we wanted to bring you more information in the words of those involved. Today we feature the words of Alice Brown, paternal grandmother of Baby Girl.

However, before reading, we’d like to advise you of a few things.

Native American families in general hold the belief that family, no matter how far extended, are part of a larger family unit. A typical Indian family unit, meaning those who reside within one household, often includes not just a mother, father and their children but rather can and often does include grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. This is not done for any financial reasons as one might think. It is done because family, even extended family, is very important to them. Having one’s family, their food, their culture all together in this way is very meaningful for them. It is not unusual that they would have a large extended household. Nor is it unusual to not use daycare services. This is because often grandparents also fulfill the role of a parent to some extent, watching the children while a parent is at work.

Many Native Americans also report that if they don’t live in the same home as their extended family, then they live on the same property or on the same street or in very, very close proximity to extended family members. Living with one’s parents in context of their lives is a positive as opposed to the way other Americans might view it.

Some sections of the documents needed to be redacted. Any information redacted was due to either A. it discussed individuals not related to the case or B. out of courtesy because it is impolite to tell a lady’s age.

Custody can either be physical or legal. Physical custody of a child is custody of the body for simplification. The child would live with their physical custodian. This person has final say on the day to day matters like giving permission for events and visits with friends and schedules. Legal custody refers to a custodian’s ability to make legal and medical decisions for the child. This person can consent to legal matters and sign for the child. It also refers to an obligation to support the child and the right of the child to inherit from parents or vice versa. This person can also consent to surgery or other medical procedures. Parental rights is the term that encompasses both legal and physical custody. To terminate one’s parental rights, either a court would have to determine a parent was unfit or a person would have to appear in court, in front of a judge and sign away all rights to their child. One cannot terminate their rights via text, process server, etc. Had Mr. Brown actually terminated or signed away his rights, this hearing wouldn’t have taken place because his case would have been thrown out much earlier on due to lack of legal ground with which to file.

Keep in mind when reading this that not everyone understands the law and legal terms. Mrs. Brown tends to use the words ‘custody’ and ‘rights’ interchangeably. Please forgive the confusion with respect to the wording and try to understand what it is Mrs. Brown is trying to convey overall.

NOTE: In Birth Mother’s testimony provided earlier, you notice she said she did not spend holidays with the family and did not attend Mr. Brown’s military graduation ceremonies. Here, you can read what Mrs. Brown has to say on the issue.

NOTE: Jo Prowell, the guardian ad litem referred to here is also the guardian ad litem the Capobiancos insist is unbiased and is the only GAL Veronica needs. They insist Veronica needs no further representation by either another guardian ad litem or attorney because this woman is representing her in South Carolina matters and they feel she is the most competent to handle all matters…..despite her clearly biased behavior discussed in these documents.